Can the Dems Bust the Filibuster?

American Thinker.com ^ | October 1, 2021 | Clayton Spann

[Kaslin]

The Senate is split 50-50 between the two parties. However, if a vote were now held to eliminate the filibuster, this split morphs to 48 yeas and 52 nays.

Such a tally allows the filibuster to survive. And it allows the sometimes despised but always wily Mitch McConnell to keep foiling the radical (and rabid) Democrat agenda. Only a simple majority is needed to eliminate the filibuster, but if the filibuster is in play, sixty votes are required to pass legislation.

The Democrats’ agenda includes HR-1 and HR-4, which would end legitimate elections in the United States. It includes HR-5, which would turn the country into a sexual dystopia. The agenda would also rezone the suburbs, pack the Federal judiciary, grab guns, grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, fully implement the Green New Deal, and probably keep the borders open forever.

At the moment, two Democrat Senators stand in the way of all this lunacy becoming law. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona are playing Horatius at the Bridge. The fate of this Grand Republic hangs on these two (so far) stalwarts.

Enormous pressure will be brought against the recalcitrant senators. Yet how far can Chuck Schumer push without the two switching party affiliation? Joe is from a very red state and Kyrsten is from a purple state which Biden is likely returning to red.

If Manchin and Sinema remain firm, what are the Democrats’ options? One thing is for sure, the Dems aren't going to give up.

Their last chance to wrench America towards their socialist paradise is slipping away. The clock ticks ever louder. In 2023 a Republican House is very likely and a Republican Senate is within reach.

[Political Junkie Too]

First, I think the second half of this article is silly.

That said...

Only a simple majority is needed to eliminate the filibuster, but if the filibuster is in play, sixty votes are required to pass legislation.

This is true only if the nuclear option is used. Strangely, the nuclear option was left off the table when the Senate Parliamentarian refused to allow immigration reforms into the Senate legislation for infrastructure, assuming it was headed for the reconciliation process as a financial bill.

I suppose, if they wanted to, the Senate Democrats could have overridden the Parliamentarian and forced the immigration reforms into the bill, just as they actually did when overriding the Parliamentarian on the cloture vote for judicial nominations.

-PJ

[Alberta's Child]

The filibuster may have originally been designed to protect the minority and ensure that substantive legislation with major impacts on Americans was passed with a large margin, but that’s not the case anymore.

The filibuster is really designed to protect the MAJORITY party in the Senate — by giving them a mechanism to defeat bills in the Senate that their constituents are demanding but their financial backers adamantly oppose. Mitch McConnell used this farce to perfection for years.

[Political Junkie Too]

Then why would the Democrats want to bust it, as the article claims?

-PJ

[No_Mas_Obama]

Any analysis that only “blames” Manchin and Sinema can be ignored. With the collapse of Sleepy Joe into lame duck status, there are a bunch of other so-called Senate “moderates” who are on track to get turfed out next November and are increasingly unlikely to vote to eliminate the f-buster. Think the two frauds in AZ and GA (Kelly and Warlock), Hassan in NH and Cortes in NV.

[Alberta's Child]

How do you know they REALLY want to bust it?

I suspect the whole thing is theater, and the Democrats will leave the filibuster in place to protect dopes like Chuck Schumer who have been owned by Wall Street for years.

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm just going by the premise of the article. The author even teases assassination and bribery to get bills passed in a 50-50 Senate, suggesting that the Democrats are willing to engage in extreme measures to get Biden's agenda passed.

To your question, it seems like the premise of the article is that the Democrats are desperate NOW to pass THIS bill, possibly because it contains measures that make the threat of future filibusters unnecessary.

-PJ

[Tallguy]

The Democrats will probably need that filibuster after the mid-terms. Don’t think that they aren’t re-evaluating at this moment.

[TontoKowalski]

You are correct. Neither party really wants to eliminate the fillibuster.

The fillibuster means that nearly every bill is subject to intense negotiations, and those negotiations provide the vehicle to slip in pork and political paybacks.

[Fury]

The fate of this Grand Republic hangs on these two (so far) stalwarts.

Good grief. Hyperbole much?

[mo]

If 2 senators really had such power...they would be ‘negated”....